Scientifically prove to be Britain's most beautiful woman!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, May 15, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, May 15, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 16/05/2012 7:41 a.m., RichA wrote:
    > There is a scientific definition of human beauty. Based on specific
    > facial measurements. Apparenly, according to tests, even young
    > infants respond more positively to a beautiful face than an ugly one.
    > Some appreciation for beauty isn't learned, it's instinctive.
    >
    > http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/0...iful-face?videoId=234790523&videoChannel=2602
    >

    This news is very surprising.
    Surprising because this "news" is at least a couple of decades out of date.
     
    Me, May 15, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:18:29 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >RichA writes:
    >
    >> There is a scientific definition of human beauty. Based on specific
    >> facial measurements. Apparenly, according to tests, even young
    >> infants respond more positively to a beautiful face than an ugly one.
    >> Some appreciation for beauty isn't learned, it's instinctive.
    >>
    >> http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/0...iful-face?videoId=234790523&videoChannel=2602

    >
    >What a joke. She has obvious asymmetry in her face and other defects. Many of


    While facial symmetry is one of the things we judge beauty on, not
    having any obvious asymmetry would look very strange to us, almost
    ugly. Try doing the old experiment of taking a picture of a face, crop
    out one side, flip the other and put it in place of what you cropped
    out. It will look "interesting"
     
    TheRealSteve, May 16, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On May 16, 2:39 pm, TheRealSteve <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 15 May 2012 23:18:29 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >RichA writes:

    >
    > >> There is a scientific definition of human beauty.  Based on specific
    > >> facial measurements.  Apparenly, according to tests, even young
    > >> infants respond more positively to a beautiful face than an ugly one.
    > >> Some appreciation for beauty isn't learned, it's instinctive.

    >
    > >>http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/05/10/a-look-at-the-uks-most-beauti....

    >
    > >What a joke. She has obvious asymmetry in her face and other defects. Many of

    >
    > While facial symmetry is one of the things we judge beauty on, not
    > having any obvious asymmetry would look very strange to us, almost
    > ugly. Try doing the old experiment of taking a picture of a face, crop
    > out one side, flip the other and put it in place of what you cropped
    > out. It will look "interesting"


    I think a more intreresting varation is to swap the eyes or invert
    them.
    Invert the lips and things start looking really odd. I fyoy do all the
    above and turn the photo upside down
    I think you can still reconginse the person but they look odd.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 16, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 17/05/2012 03:53, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2012-05-16 18:23:02 -0700, Mxsmanic <> said:
    >
    >> TheRealSteve writes:
    >>
    >>> While facial symmetry is one of the things we judge beauty on, not
    >>> having any obvious asymmetry would look very strange to us, almost
    >>> ugly.

    >>
    >> Not so. Perfect symmetry is considered beautiful. Many studies have shown
    >> this.


    See for example the casting of the elves in Lord of the Rings.
    You can create left reflection or right reflection portraits of most
    people that look different enough to be two individuals. Simple trick in
    photoshop provided they are staring down a 100mm or longer lens.

    > ...and here I was thinking immediately available was considered beautiful.


    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, May 17, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    otter Guest

    On May 16, 9:53 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2012-05-16 18:23:02 -0700, Mxsmanic <> said:
    >
    > > TheRealSteve writes:

    >
    > >> While facial symmetry is one of the things we judge beauty on, not
    > >> having any obvious asymmetry would look very strange to us, almost
    > >> ugly.

    >
    > > Not so. Perfect symmetry is considered beautiful. Many studies have shown
    > > this.

    >
    > ...and here I was thinking immediately available was considered beautiful..


    You also have to factor in lateness of night, and blood alcohol level.
     
    otter, May 17, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Thu, 17 May 2012 03:23:02 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >TheRealSteve writes:
    >
    >> While facial symmetry is one of the things we judge beauty on, not
    >> having any obvious asymmetry would look very strange to us, almost
    >> ugly.

    >
    >Not so. Perfect symmetry is considered beautiful. Many studies have shown
    >this.


    Humans are very adept at detecting facial symmetry. When selecting
    partners, bi-lateral symmetry, including facial symmetry, indicates
    less genetic problems and less exposure to environmental stresses like
    disease, toxins, accidents, etc. So we judge greater symmetry as more
    desirable, i.e., beautiful. But only to the point where perfect
    symmetry is reached. Since we are so good at percieving symmetry, and
    since no person every born has perfect symmetry, a perfect symmetrical
    face would look unnatural.

    You need to do the experiment for yourself. Using photoshop, gimp, or
    whatever editor you like, take a face that you consider beautiful (one
    that probably has a very high degree of symmetry) and edit it so the
    face is perfectly symmetrical. I.e., take the left side, flip it
    vertically and place it over the right side. You'll be surprised at
    the results.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 19, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Sat, 19 May 2012 22:46:30 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >TheRealSteve writes:
    >
    >> Humans are very adept at detecting facial symmetry. When selecting
    >> partners, bi-lateral symmetry, including facial symmetry, indicates
    >> less genetic problems and less exposure to environmental stresses like
    >> disease, toxins, accidents, etc. So we judge greater symmetry as more
    >> desirable, i.e., beautiful. But only to the point where perfect
    >> symmetry is reached. Since we are so good at percieving symmetry, and
    >> since no person every born has perfect symmetry, a perfect symmetrical
    >> face would look unnatural.

    >
    >The perfectly symmetrical faces I've seen look entirely natural.


    If you're looking at real faces, you haven't seen a perfectly
    symmetrical one.

    >> You need to do the experiment for yourself. Using photoshop, gimp, or
    >> whatever editor you like, take a face that you consider beautiful (one
    >> that probably has a very high degree of symmetry) and edit it so the
    >> face is perfectly symmetrical. I.e., take the left side, flip it
    >> vertically and place it over the right side. You'll be surprised at
    >> the results.

    >
    >That happens because of minor misalignments in the two halves, not because of
    >high symmetry.


    Misalignment in the process above can cause a beautiful face to turn
    ugly. You have to place the halves so that the eyes are the same
    distance apart in the processed image as the original. IOW, cut and
    flip the image exactly between the two eyes. If you do that, you're
    not misaligning the two halves.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 20, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Sun, 20 May 2012 17:30:20 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >TheRealSteve writes:
    >
    >> If you're looking at real faces, you haven't seen a perfectly
    >> symmetrical one.

    >
    >I was looking at computer-generated or composite faces.


    Exactly. They may look beautiful to you but they still look unnatural.
    They don't look like a picture of a real face. Not even a picture of a
    really beautiful real face.

    >> Misalignment in the process above can cause a beautiful face to turn
    >> ugly. You have to place the halves so that the eyes are the same
    >> distance apart in the processed image as the original. IOW, cut and
    >> flip the image exactly between the two eyes. If you do that, you're
    >> not misaligning the two halves.

    >
    >You still have to rotate the halves and do other tweaking in order to make it
    >look realistic.


    You can't rotate the halves. You have to mirror image them.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 21, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    TheRealSteve Guest

    On Tue, 22 May 2012 02:13:20 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >TheRealSteve writes:
    >
    >> Exactly. They may look beautiful to you but they still look unnatural.

    >
    >They look both beautiful and natural. Without being told, I would not know
    >that they were not pictures of real people.


    If you had a photo lineup of computer generated perfectly symmetrical
    faces vs. pictures of real faces that are considered beautiful, you
    would be able to tell which are which. And if not, maybe your powers
    of observation are just not that developed.

    >> You can't rotate the halves. You have to mirror image them.

    >
    >You have to do both.


    The only time you would need to rotate the flipped half is if the
    original picture was not vertical.
     
    TheRealSteve, May 22, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    TrimmerNZ

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    WTF?

    This would make me laugh if it wasn't so ridiculous. Science can't measure beauty because beauty is subjective. Symmetry is not necessarily beauty. In fact I personally find perfectly symmetrical faces extremely boring, and far from "beautiful". I didn't find the girl in the video particularly beautiful either. Granted, she wasn't exactly ugly, but far from beautiful in my subjective opinion. asymmetrical faces are more beautiful to me because they are more interesting, whereas perfectly symmetrical faces are less likely to get my attention. Again, this is just my OPINION because beauty is SUBJECTIVE. All I can say is that I seriously hope that people aren't putting too much stock into this crap. There's already so many young people out there who are brain washed by the media into thinking that they aren't good enough. We don't need this rubbish doing the rounds either. Beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.
    Tom :)
     
    TrimmerNZ, Jun 2, 2012
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. George Hammond

    Re: Hammond's SPOG SCIENTIFICALLY falsefied

    George Hammond, Oct 11, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    765
    fwd: from Erik
    Oct 13, 2005
  2. moonsotti

    choosing the camera scientifically

    moonsotti, Feb 7, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    290
    professorpaul
    Feb 8, 2007
  3. Plato

    Re: Britain's most popular boys name...

    Plato, Jun 7, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    467
    Plato
    Jun 10, 2007
  4. Aardvark

    Re: Britain's most popular boys name...

    Aardvark, Jun 8, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    562
    Aardvark
    Jun 9, 2007
  5. joevan

    Chernoble pictures taken. by a beautiful woman

    joevan, Oct 20, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,763
    elaich
    Oct 21, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page